The Department of State Services (DSS) has appealed the court ruling granting bail to 12 Yoruba Nation activist arrested at the residence of secessionist leader, Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho.
In a suit numbered FHC/ABJ/647/2021, the appellant, the Director-General, Yusuf Bichi and the country’s secret police he heads, otherwise known as the State Security Services (SSS) or DSS appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja, of “being dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja presided over by the Honourable Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu which decision was handed down in the ruling delivered on the 4th day of August, 2021 in Suit no: FHC/ABJ/CS/647/2021; Abdulateef Ademola Onaoluapo and 11 Ors v Director General, State Security Services.”
Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja had on August 4 granted bail to the 12 associates of Sunday Igboho.
Delivering the ruling on the application filed by the 12 applicants before the court, the presiding Judge said, “It is clear that no charge has been brought against Sunday Igboho’s aides since their arrest.”
As such, the court held that detaining them without charging them contravenes the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and their fundamental rights.
Eight of the applicants, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th applicants, were granted bail in the sum of N5 million each in like sum and to produce a surety resident in Abuja.
The remaining four applicants, the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 12th applicants, were granted bail in the sum of N10 million each with two sureties in like sum, who must also be resident in Abuja.
However, according to a copy of the appellate suit obtained by SaharaReporters on Sunday, Bichi and the DSS “do hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the relief(s) set out in paragraph 4.
“And the Appellant further states that the names and addresses of the persons directly affected by the appeal are those set out in paragraph 5.”
It added that part of the decision of the court complained of is the “part of the decision relating to the grant of bail to the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 12th Applicants, Respondents.”
The names of the 12 aides are Abdullateef Ofegbade, Amudat Habibat Babatunde, aka Lady K, Tajudeen Irinloye, Diekola Jubril Ademola, Abideen Shittu, Jamiu Noah Oyetunji, Ayobami Donald, Uthman Opeyemi Adelabu, Olakinle Oluwapelumi, Raji Kazeem, Taiwo Opeyemi Tajudeen, and Bamidele Sunday.
The operatives of the DSS raided Igboho’s house in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital on July 1, and arrested 12 of his aides who were illegally detained before the victims challenged the detention and abuse of their rights in court.
They were later granted bail after spending 34 days in detention, though on stringent conditions.
The DSS, however, opposed their bail as seen in the five-page appeal suit dated 13th August, 2021, stating three grounds of appeal.
The DSS filed the appeal through its legal representatives who conprising I. Awo, I. Onotu and U. Batife and O. A. Adelayo.
The DSS, in part of its grounds partly stated that, “The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when the Honourable Court held that the facts raised in the oral response to the oral bail application of the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 12th Respondents were not grounded in Appellants Affidavit, thereby denying the Appellants fair hearing.
“The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when the Honourable Court failed to order parties to file written addresses or affidavits when contentious issues were raised by Appellants.
“The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held that Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) which set out the circumstances wherein bail should be refused to Respondents only applies where there is a valid charge before the Court.”
Identifying some of what it described as ‘Particulars of Error’, the DSS stated, “The Appellants opposed the grant of bail to 2nd, 5th, 6th and 12th Respondents and raised several substantial disputes as to facts why these set of Respondents should not be granted bail.
“The Respondents did not file a written bail application to enable the Appellants file a counter affidavit wherein those facts raised could be deposed to.”